Optimizing Geriatric Venipuncture: A DRG-Compatible Team-Based Reengineering Strategy

Figures & data

Figure 1 Study design.

Figure 2 Control Group according to the Complication showed control group according to complication that are include Venous Inflammation, Leakage, Catheter Occlusion and Other.

Figure 3 Study Group according to the Complication showed Study Group according to complication that are include Venous Inflammation, Leakage, Catheter Occlusion and Other.

Table 1 Comparison of General Characteristics Between the Control Group and the Study Group

	Control group	Study Group	χ2/ton	P-value
Gender (male/female).	115/74	126/73	0.251	0.616
Age (years)	78.84±10.44	79.87±10.54	−0.963	0.336
Length of hospital stay (days)	14.95±8.37	16.45±7.51	−1.861	0.064

Notes: χ² represents the chi-square test, t represents the independent sample Normality test, and P-value indicates the statistical significance.

Table 2 Comparison of Relevant Indicators of Intravenous Indwelling Needles in the Two Groups

	Control Group	Study Group	χ2/t	P-value
Indwelling Needles (number)	5.61±3.01	4.35±1.92	4.860	<0.001
Infusion Connectors (number)	5.10±2.63	4.09±1.70	4.440	<0.001
Adhesive Dressings (number)	5.06±2.58	4.13±1.69	4.159	<0.001
Duration of Use (hours)	69.78±13.48	95.80±26.49	12.274	<0.001
Total Cost (RMB)	410.68±213.95	325.74±137.53	4.662	<0.001
Average Daily Cost (RMB)	29.09±8.18	21.49±7.67	9.425	<0.001

Notes: χ² represents the chi-square test, t represents the independent sample Normality test, and P-value indicates the statistical significance.

Table 3 Comparison of the First-Attempt Success Rate of Venous Indwelling Needle and the Usage of Imaging Device Between the Control Group and the Study Group

	Control Group	Study Group	χ2	P-value
Total Attempts	956	818
First-attempt Success (rate)	774 (80.96%)	701 (85.70%)	7.051	0.009
Imaging Device Usage (rate)	231 (24.2%)	234 (28.6%)	4.499	0.041

Notes: A comparative analysis between the control and study groups regarding the first-attempt success rate of venous indwelling needle insertion and the usage rates of imaging devices during the procedure. The “Control Group” column reflects data from standard procedure practices, while the “Study Group” column shows data following the implementation of the reengineered intervention. This comparison aims to demonstrate the effectiveness of the intervention in enhancing procedural success and potentially reducing the need for imaging device assistance. All data are presented as numbers with percentages in parentheses. χ² represents the chi-square test, and P-value indicates the statistical significance.

Table 4 Comparison of Complications Related to Venous Catheterization Between the Two Groups

Complication	Control Group (N=189)	Study Group (N=198)	χ2	P-value
Venous Inflammation	15 (7.94%)	6 (3.03%)	4.586	0.032
Leakage	8 (4.23%)	7 (3.54%)	0.126	0.722
Catheter Occlusion	16 (8.47%)	5 (2.53%)	6.649	0.010
Other	12 (6.35%)	6 (3.03%)	2.402	0.121
Total	51 (27.0%)	25 (12.6%)	12.631	<0.001

Notes: χ² represents the chi-square test, and P-value indicates the statistical significance. Percentages are calculated based on the total number of patients in each group. The study group demonstrated significantly lower incidence rates of venous inflammation and catheter occlusion compared to the control group (P<0.05). It’s important to note that some patients experienced more than one type of complication, which means the total complication rate for each group accounts for unique patients affected, not the sum of individual complication instances.

Data Sharing Statement

Data for this study is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.